...THIS STORY SHALL ALSO BE TOLD !!!


saru

Re: ...THIS STORY SHALL ALSO BE TOLD !!!

Post by saru » 26 Oct 2012 16:57

Lol and who will play Conan , think Arnold is out of muscles atm !

Pompej

Re: ...THIS STORY SHALL ALSO BE TOLD !!!

Post by Pompej » 26 Oct 2012 17:30

"After the original seminal movie, all that came after looked silly to me,” Morgan said. “Robert E. Howard’s mythology and some great philosophy from Nietzsche to Atilla the Hun was layered in the original film".

Sounds promasing that Morgan understood the philosophical backround in the first Conan the barbarian. Destroyer and the new conan were nothing more then mere chep action and painfully boring and shallow screenplay.

:guard:

User avatar
Gurnax
Guild Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 11 Jan 2012 07:30
Main Name: Lenyn
Main Class: Dark Templar
Location: a<>$
Contact:

Re: ...THIS STORY SHALL ALSO BE TOLD !!!

Post by Gurnax » 26 Oct 2012 18:06

Pompej wrote:"After the original seminal movie, all that came after looked silly to me,” Morgan said. “Robert E. Howard’s mythology and some great philosophy from Nietzsche to Atilla the Hun was layered in the original film".

Sounds promasing that Morgan understood the philosophical backround in the first Conan the barbarian. Destroyer and the new conan were nothing more then mere chep action and painfully boring and shallow screenplay.

:guard:
Since 1982 Conan movie starts with a Nietzsche quote - and it's a signed quote, in big bold letters it says "Nietzsche" - one would have to be dyslexic not to see the connection. Therefore it would be an overstatement to say that this new guy 'understood philosophical background'. He is able to read the titles, but I wouldn't call that promising since it's rather common, at least IMO. ;)

Regarding Conan the Destroyer, there is at least one scene that must redeem that film in the eyes of anyone who is even remotely interested in philosophy, namely, the scene in which Schwarzenegger tries to destroy the man-ape directly and fails in that attempt, and only than he discovers that monster can be destroyed only by first destroying all of its reflections. Aiming at the reflection first and not at the thing itself is a philosophical theme par excellence.

Finally, regarding the Momoa film, it starts with a citation of Kubrick's 2001, with this big baby fetus floating, and then it cuts (both as in 'film cut', editing, and as in 'sword cut') to that same baby being overshadowed by a piercing sword. It's a pretty cool joke that says this is a film that is aware both of itself as well as its cinematic influences.

You need to get more fun out of life, Pompej, and not discard things all too lightly ;)
Last edited by Gurnax on 26 Oct 2012 18:27, edited 1 time in total.
“Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted.”
Groucho Marx
Image

Pompej

Re: ...THIS STORY SHALL ALSO BE TOLD !!!

Post by Pompej » 26 Oct 2012 18:17

Gurnax wrote:
Pompej wrote:"After the original seminal movie, all that came after looked silly to me,” Morgan said. “Robert E. Howard’s mythology and some great philosophy from Nietzsche to Atilla the Hun was layered in the original film".

Sounds promasing that Morgan understood the philosophical backround in the first Conan the barbarian. Destroyer and the new conan were nothing more then mere chep action and painfully boring and shallow screenplay.

:guard:
Since 1982 Conan movie starts with Nietzsche quote, and it's a signed quote, in big bold letters it says "Nietzsche", one would have to be dyslexic not to see the connection. o.o
If we are talking about most people (not people who know certin stuff) the Nietzsche quote might aswell been just a visual bug. More importantly, in the actual film there are lots of philosophical premises that escaped most. Thats why Conan the barbarian was "called out" as a shallow and mere action motion picture. Called as shallow by shallow ones. Kinda ironic.As a matter of fact,its just ironic.

"Robert E. Howard’s mythology and some great philosophy from Nietzsche to Atilla the Hun was layered in the original film",said Morgan. If the Nietzsche quote made him say: "and some great philosophy from Nietzsche" ,i would think : this guy is spitting verbal diarrhea . For the sake of the actual movie,im hoping he is not.

Im happy to be seriuos ;)

User avatar
Gurnax
Guild Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 11 Jan 2012 07:30
Main Name: Lenyn
Main Class: Dark Templar
Location: a<>$
Contact:

Re: ...THIS STORY SHALL ALSO BE TOLD !!!

Post by Gurnax » 26 Oct 2012 18:33

Pompej wrote:
If we are talking about most people (not people who know certin stuff) the Nietzsche quote might aswell been just a visual bug. More importantly, in the actual film there are lots of philosophical premises that escaped most. Thats why Conan the barbarian was "called out" as a shallow and mere action motion picture. Called as shallow by shallow ones. Kinda ironic.As a matter of fact,its just ironic.
Internet is filled with people swearing on the 1982 Conan movie. It has a cult status among many, that's one of the reasons they are making this new film with Schwarzenegger again. It's rather far from being exclusive if you think this film is something special, since almost every nerd will swear to you that this film contains the meaning of life.
“Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted.”
Groucho Marx
Image

Size

Re: ...THIS STORY SHALL ALSO BE TOLD !!!

Post by Size » 26 Oct 2012 18:47

Together with Steven segall, Arnold is the most corny actor this world have seen. x)

Pompej

Re: ...THIS STORY SHALL ALSO BE TOLD !!!

Post by Pompej » 26 Oct 2012 23:28

Gurnax wrote:
Pompej wrote:
If we are talking about most people (not people who know certin stuff) the Nietzsche quote might aswell been just a visual bug. More importantly, in the actual film there are lots of philosophical premises that escaped most. Thats why Conan the barbarian was "called out" as a shallow and mere action motion picture. Called as shallow by shallow ones. Kinda ironic.As a matter of fact,its just ironic.
Internet is filled with people swearing on the 1982 Conan movie. It has a cult status among many, that's one of the reasons they are making this new film with Schwarzenegger again. It's rather far from being exclusive if you think this film is something special, since almost every nerd will swear to you that this film contains the meaning of life.
It's rather far from being exclusive ? Then i must form a oposite opinion to be more exclusive. But that would be childs play. Im fine with non-exlusivnes as long as my personal axioms are entitled to be..... exlusive.

What i pointed out is that Conan the barbarian 1982 has a (very rough) philosophical premise of F.W. Nietzsche(which is to my liking but it would still have that premise if i didint like it) throughtout the whole movie which goes from the rather-son talk to tullsa dooms monologue " whats steel compared to the sword that wields it"(at this sentance we can even draw a paralele with S.Kubricks 2001, in the epic scene where monkey is taking(understanding) the animal bone as a weapon .Interesting enough, escorted by the grandiose music piece by R.Strauss named Thus spoke Zaratustra which is a book of F.Nietzsche, as you know) then conans talk with crom " crom,even you will not remember were be good or bad and why we died" etc . In the destroyer or the new conan i dont see it,the premise layed under those movies.

The examples that you pointed out are valid (in the terms of lets call it healthy or right way of thinking) but they are not in cohesion as a whole with the movie(s) itself. And thanks for your replies ,i enjoy(ed) anwsering to them and reading them. :guard:

Meaning of life ? i have one : I know of no better life purpose than to perish in attempting the great and the impossible ;)
Last edited by Pompej on 27 Oct 2012 03:49, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gurnax
Guild Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 11 Jan 2012 07:30
Main Name: Lenyn
Main Class: Dark Templar
Location: a<>$
Contact:

Re: ...THIS STORY SHALL ALSO BE TOLD !!!

Post by Gurnax » 27 Oct 2012 02:26

@Pompej,

What bothers me with this approach, when stitching some philosopher or even some other work of art to a certain piece of cinema, is precisely the 'un-filmical' character of such an act (as in 'not-right-for-that-concrete-medium').

What I mean is, cinema is by definition collective (experience), it is inclusive and therefore it does not suffer exclusivity. Even if you watch a film at home, still it is intended for the masses. It is an industry, a mass medium, and by definition it treats everyone the same/as if everyone is same. And when someone says, like you did here 'Oh, it's actually Nietzsche!' you are trying to somehow bypass this particular cinema's dimension, it's essential characteristic, because you are trying to rise above others in a context that does not allow that kind of exclusion. And in that attempt, I would argue, you only manage to bypass the whole work of cinema and nothing else. And the only thing you gain is something akin to paranoid delusions, where you see 'hidden truths' and 'hidden masters' - whether they are F. Nietzsche, Masonic conspiracy, secret governmental organizations in league with extraterrestrials, it amounts to same thing: you miss the film because you look at something else which even might not be there.

I think the first step in approaching film should be to see how it relates to masses, and then count that in as certain film's major achievement. So, if you, like you said, think Milius' Conan movie doesn't really emphasize Nietzsche enough, so that many people believe this quote is there almost by mistake, then that's it: it's not a Nietzschean film and it only flirts with Nietzsche! And, in truth, it might be doing that because it doesn't really need Nietzsche's words - it has it's own language and its own ways of achieving effects of meaning.
“Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted.”
Groucho Marx
Image

Pompej

Re: ...THIS STORY SHALL ALSO BE TOLD !!!

Post by Pompej » 27 Oct 2012 03:34

Gurnax wrote:@Pompej,

What bothers me with this approach, when stitching some philosopher or even some other work of art to a certain piece of cinema, is precisely the 'un-filmical' character of such an act (as in 'not-right-for-that-concrete-medium').

What I mean is, cinema is by definition collective (experience), it is inclusive and therefore it does not suffer exclusivity. Even if you watch a film at home, still it is intended for the masses. It is an industry, a mass medium, and by definition it treats everyone the same/as if everyone is same. And when someone says, like you did here 'Oh, it's actually Nietzsche!' you are trying to somehow bypass this particular cinema's dimension, it's essential characteristic, because you are trying to rise above others in a context that does not allow that kind of exclusion. And in that attempt, I would argue, you only manage to bypass the whole work of cinema and nothing else. And the only thing you gain is something akin to paranoid delusions, where you see 'hidden truths' and 'hidden masters' - whether they are F. Nietzsche, Masonic conspiracy, secret governmental organizations in league with extraterrestrials, it amounts to same thing: you miss the film because you look at something else which even might not be there.

I think the first step in approaching film should be to see how it relates to masses, and then count that in as certain film's major achievement. So, if you, like you said, think Milius' Conan movie doesn't really emphasize Nietzsche enough, so that many people believe this quote is there almost by mistake, then that's it: it's not a Nietzschean film and it only flirts with Nietzsche! And, in truth, it might be doing that because it doesn't really need Nietzsche's words - it has it's own language and its own ways of achieving effects of meaning.
First, i would like to exlude Masonic conspiracy, secret governmental organizations in league with extraterrestrials from F.Nietzsche cuz its distastefull(a harsh word but i coudnt find any lighter one) and a little it seems to discredit me as "masons rule the world" and " bush is a lizard" type a guy but i understand it wasnt in a bad manner.In a good talk we need to have our big guns out.We are talking philosophy,not David Icke so we have that thing sorted now. Second,im not interested in Nietzsche nore i give a damn about him.His work are another thing. And this kind german gentelman never gave any anwsers(he gave questions) so there is nothing to follow (alusion to nietzsche as master).

The thing is where we part ways is pretty simple : motion picture. I agree with what you said if i would think like you,there is no doubt about it.Your explanation as how you see cinema are very astute and valid. But lets think like me for a moment : i gave you lot of arguments why this movie would have a Nietzsche premise (if you dont like the sound of it, we can say this conan movie has similar ideas to one german philosopher) and i see all of them well thinked and argumented (to a point when nietzsches books were read ofc). Cuz let say this : for me motion picture is subjective experience.And even if it wasnt i still wouldnt care cuz you make you own rules,you have no choice. You will take other ideas or say " i want this,this is my ruling word".Im not interested in the absolute meaning of motion picture cuz i dont see it like you do.But im far from " all have a right to think what we want,all is true(or nothing is true)". Thats why we have dialetic ,the ultimate defense weapon to be right even if we arnt.

At the end i would urge you to try looking thIS subject with my eyes and tell me where you find a flaw with argument i layed down since we cant attack the main system on which we lay our thoughts or we might stuck in a dead end. If this will acure i will salute you and thank you for disargumenting my stands. Nothing is more passion filled when somebody gives you something "else" to think about Cheers 8-)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests